CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s35E51398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)129 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ciliz against the Netherlands   (Application No. 29192/95, judgment of 11/07/2000)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the failure of the Dutch authorities adequately to preserve the applicant's right to respect of his family due to their decision to expel him while proceedings concerning his right of access were still pending, depriving him of any opportunity to resume contact with his son (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Netherlands' obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state had paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations,   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 764th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (15/10/2001), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)129   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Ciliz against the Netherlands   Introductory case summary   The case concerns the failure of the Dutch authorities adequately to preserve the applicant's right to respect of his family life on account of a decision in 1995 not to extend the applicant's residence permit and to expel him to Turkey, his country of origin, although proceedings were still pending concerning his right of access in respect of his son, born in 1990. The Court noted in particular that by expelling the applicant before the courts had assessed the strength of his family links with his son, the authorities had prejudged the outcome of the proceedings and, more importantly, they had denied the applicant all possibility of any further meaningful involvement in the proceedings. When the applicant eventually obtained a visa to return to the Netherlands, in 1999, the mere passage of time had resulted in a de facto determination of the access proceedings (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a)      Details of just satisfaction   Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Interpretation Costs   25   000 NLG 18   200 NLG + VAT (less the amounts received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) 4   352,50 NLG Paid within the time-limit set by the judgment   b) Individual measures   In 1999, the applicant re-entered the Netherlands with a temporary visa. He obtained employment and submitted a new application for a formal access arrangement in relation to his son. This was rejected in December 1999. The applicant appealed against this decision and, following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, he was granted an automatically renewable residence permit, irrespective of whether he had a working permit or not, which afforded him the possibility to continue the procedure without any risk of being expelled during the proceedings.   II.   General measures   The judgment of the European Court has been published in Nederlands Juristen Blad , 6/10/2000, p. 1752, in NJCM-Bulletin 2002, p. 253; in AB 2001, p. 117 and in JV 2000, p. 187. The judgment was also circulated to the relevant administrative and judicial authorities by a special circular on the law related to aliens called Tussentijds Bericht Vreemdelingencirculaire (TBV, no. 5081206/00/IND). Furthermore, the Netherlands authorities recalled that in addition to the publication, all judgments of the European Court concerning the Netherlands are made public by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through its yearly report to Parliament as well as by the Ministry of Justice through a newsletter addressed to the judiciary.   The government is of the opinion that, considering that the Convention has direct effect in Dutch law and that the domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with the judgments of the European Court (see Lala and Pelladoah, Resolutions DH(95)240 et DH(99)241), the authorities concerned will use their best endeavours to prevent the occurrence of violations similar to that found by the European Court in the present case.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that the Netherlands has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies